Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of her antecedent.
Summary
Sunita Devi was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 50 litres of liquor from a motorcycle she owned. She contended that she had no knowledge of the liquor being in the vehicle and that she was not in possession of it, emphasizing her clean antecedent and gender. The State opposed her request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and conditioned it on verification of her criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged possession of liquor.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle suffices to implicate the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482
- vehicle ownership
- possession
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18615 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/o- Parma Nut R/v- Dhenuki Maniya Ps- Panapur Dist- Saran
at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 50 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from her conscious possession and she came to
be implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18615 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that her friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged. It is next submitted that it is not the case of the
prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing from the place of
occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Panapur
P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18615 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…